Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: CNN Poll: Record Support for Roe v Wade?

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-10T07:55:06.344-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

Abortion might have been illegal pre Roe V Wade bu...

2009-06-01T15:36:15.017-04:00

Abortion might have been illegal pre Roe V Wade but it did in fact go on. The wealthy went 'on vacation', perhaps to Europe to resolve their perceived problem and the poor were left to the doctor prepared to risk their careers or more than likely, the back room abortionist with minimal training and provisions for problems and even basic surgical sanitation.
The reality is that because we refuse to teach effective birth control and because adoption remains a difficult and imperfect process we have one of the highest illegitimate birth rates among developed countries.
For me personally abortion is not an option. I would not presume to judge or limit the decisions of others as I am not walking in their shoes.
The continued inflammatory remarks by the pro-life community and the stance of my church on birth control and abortion (I was raised Catholic) has more than anything turned me off to their rhetoric.
Is a meaningful dialogue still possible? Yes, but among rational people prepared to address the root cause of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, not just the commitment to banning abortions without changing said root cause.

And the "All Grown Up Award" goes to... Just want...

2009-05-26T09:38:46.501-04:00

And the "All Grown Up Award" goes to...

Just want to point something out folks. We just had a multi-day, wide-ranging discussion on abortion of all things, on the internet.

No one, not one person, yelled at anyone. No one resorted to name calling. No one got shrill. It was respectful dialogue all around. I've seen less cordial online discussions about whether a Sith Lord is technically a Jedi.

Let me just say: "Yay, us!" :-)

Support for Roe is higher than the pro-choice self...

2009-05-26T09:07:09.319-04:00

Support for Roe is higher than the pro-choice self-ID. Nate, the reason why is important, and I think you give it less thought than usual.

Here is one hypothesis: People don't understand what overturning Roe will do. They think it will outlaw all abortion, everywhere. In that case 65% support for Roe makes more sense. Putting this data together with data on which restricts the public supports, it is a pretty clear picture.

Voters would outlaw abortions of convenience (about 85-90% of abortions) and leave abortion legal in the rare cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.

That doesn't sound anything like Roe or Casey. But journalists have never been good about nuance on Court decisions.

Are there any surveys that ask "should all non-partial birth abortions be legal or should states be free to restrict some abortions?" That is a more realistic description of the Roe era and any possible post-Roe era.

theonlysaneone said The difference is that the de...

2009-05-26T06:42:42.506-04:00

theonlysaneone said
The difference is that the death penalty is a legal punishment for a crime. An unborn fetus is the only human being who can be assured to have not committed any type of crime whatsoever.
----------------------------

But as a Catholic I find that position utterly confusing. If life is sacred, and only God can decide if it continues or not, then the circumstances are not relevant. You cannot take a life. If your view is different from that then call it what it is 'anti abortion' not 'pro life'.

This stuff is all really interesting, but everyone...

2009-05-25T22:28:14.258-04:00

This stuff is all really interesting, but everyone is missing the point. Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it simply means that someone will have to specifically enact a law that says it is either legal or illegal.

Right R v. W means that the Supreme Court took the law making process under its robes and found the right to abortion (privacy, whatever) in the constitution. I have read the constitution and find it hard to see, but that is just me.

If everyone feels that abortion should be (pick one) legal/illegal, then have your state or federal law making bodies introduce the legislation and vote on it. I like that approach much better than the Supreme Court using some sort of divining rod to determine this.

Davy: In various European countries and Japan, ab...

2009-05-25T21:35:05.771-04:00

Davy:

In various European countries and Japan, abortion is pretty uncontroversial. I think that's because there's a way smaller percentage of fundamentalist Christians in those countries. So if the U.S. becomes less fundamentalist, there will be less controversy about abortion and various other so-called "social issues" like gay marriage, teaching evolution and not the Biblical creation story in science classes, etc.

As a grad student, I have been conducting a survey...

2009-05-25T18:53:33.786-04:00

As a grad student, I have been conducting a survey and I can appreciate how the proper use of language is important. I have agonized over and edited my survey to be certain that the questions elicit an honest response without leading the respondents to somewhere of my choosing. It's harder than you might think. It's also what annoys me about Meet the Press with David Gregory. His questions are loaded with presumptions. This goes for answers, too. Leon Paneta, in response to Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the CIA did not give congress clear information about enhanced interrogation techniques, said "Let me be clear. it is not the policy of the CIA to mislead the congress...etc." Note that this is neither clear nor is it a denial. Hard to imagine that an agency full of people practiced in the art of deception could be misleading, I know.

I wonder if there will ever be a day when Roe v. Wade will not be such an inflammatory topic? Conservatives seem content in trying to define a fetus as a person by picking legal holes in cases involving, say, murdered pregnant women. As though they could sneak precedent in through the back door. But who am I to talk? I think there should be law against cloning and I think the Octo-mom debacle borders on a criminal offense. I also find it offensive when those who purport to be pro-life also are against birth control. One can indeed be pro-choice AND pro-life. Just not the other way around, it would seem.

theonlysaneone Bodily integrity and bodily autono...

2009-05-25T17:59:44.693-04:00

theonlysaneone

Bodily integrity and bodily autonomy don’t mean “you can’t use your body to shoplift”. Bodily autonomy is the difference between being put in prison because you shoplifted, and being put in prison when you didn’t shoplift, i.e., for no good reason. It’s the difference between lawful imprisonment and unlawful imprisonment. You violate the law, you are imprisoned -versus- you do nothing wrong, you are imprisoned.

Think about a law-abiding person, say your mother, and consider these topics of bodily integrity and autonomy: rape, slavery, unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, habeus corpus, forced organ removal, eugenic sterilization, sterilization of the mentally challenged, informed consent for medical care, uninformed medical experimentation, forced medical experimentation on prisoners, freedom from assault and battery, peeping toms, hidden cameras in bathrooms, feeding drugs to an unwitting person, police officer demanding a strip search of your wife/daughter/mother on a busy street corner, inappropriate touching of children, kidnapping, mandatory circumcision, female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy, infibulation, etc.), forced abortion in China, forced pregnancy, coerced childbirth.

See, there’s not a single shoplifting prohibition in the list!

@beavis I agree. Most constitutional scholars bel...

2009-05-25T14:55:57.067-04:00

@beavis

I agree. Most constitutional scholars believe Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, but that doesn't mean they want to see abortion outlawed. Indeed, at least two of the justices who upheld Roe (O'Connor and Ginsberg) found fault with it. Believing abortion should be legal is not the same as agreeing with the legal reasoning in Roe.

5. The Republican party says it's pro-life. In fac...

2009-05-25T14:53:35.524-04:00

5. The Republican party says it's pro-life. In fact, it trumpets the fact every chance it gets. But after a few decades of an overwhelmingly "pro-life" party platform, how much has actually changed since 1973? When liberals (Dems and some Reps alike) finally decided to deal with civil rights somewhere around 1948, it didn't take decades and decades and decades to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And, as expected, the Democrats payed for it with the loss of the South in Presidential elections. There seems to be a tangible lack of action on abortion on the part of federal Republicans, except for nibbling at the edges. From the outside, it looks like you're being taken for a ride. Do you ever feel the same way?
Sometimes it does feel that way. I think the biggest sticking point is Roe v. Wade (imagine if Brown v. Board had turned out the other way. The civil rights fight would STILL be going on). The only thing Republicans really can do at this point is to appoint justices to the Supreme and Appellate courts that will uphold the rights of the fetus and hope that a case comes along one day that can overturn Roe v. Wade. George W. Bush's two Supreme Court picks were good.

Sorry again for so many questions, but it's a rare privilege in our nation's bifurcated public square to get the opportunity to ask any of these questions, and I'm really curious.
I'm happy to answer them. Your questions have made me think through issues that previously hadn't occurred to me.

I find it very odd though, and theonlysaneone's post brings this to light, that 'pro-life' on abortion tends to also mean 'pro-death' on the death penalty. As a Catholic I find that a very very hard circle to square.The difference is that the death penalty is a legal punishment for a crime. An unborn fetus is the only human being who can be assured to have not committed any type of crime whatsoever.

1. Oral contraceptives work in a way that can caus...

2009-05-25T14:53:15.942-04:00

1. Oral contraceptives work in a way that can cause a fertilized egg from implanting. This is why pharamcists are covered by a conscience clause about dispensing them (a good thing IMHO). Should OCs be illegal? If a woman uses OCs legally what is it? Attempted murder? Reckless endangerment?
It would technically be the same as an abortion, but I honestly can't see a jury ever giving a woman a murder sentence for using birth control pills (and I probably wouldn't myself). A good policy would probably be to ban those pills and make it a crime to import them or use them.

However, in the absence of those pills, some enterprising pharmaceutical company would likely invent an alternative pill that could prevent fertilization or release of the egg but would be safe for a fertilized embryo.

2. I am confused on what Pro-Life folks want. Most say in public "overturn Roe v. Wade", which would simply throw it back to the states, sometimes on a state's rights argument. But, then the Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment which would extend the 14th Amendment to include fetuses/ unborn babies, thereby banning abortion in all states and territories, even strongly pro-choice ones like New York and California. Which is it? Or is it some combo of the two? And if the first, how should we handle women who cross state lines.
I would be happiest with a Human Life amendment, but overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to pass laws against abortion would be a huge step in the right direction. In that case, I don't think much could be done about people crossing state lines to have abortions.

3. If it is the extension of the 14th Amendment, might that not cause an avalanche of frivolous, but legally provocative lawsuits like... can a pregnant woman enter a porno theater? Or should pregnancies and frozen IVF embryos be counted for the census? Or can a pregnant woman legally be held in prison, thereby imprisoning two people, one innocent? Can someone at 17 years and 3 months old vote? Or draw social security nine months earlier? And what counts for citizenship purposes, whether you were born or conceived on US soil? (Yes, yes, mostly silly, but tell me you can't see the courts being clogged with this stuff.)
It would probably cause some stupid lawsuits, but then again, so do a lot of major laws and even higher court decisions. They would be up to the court to decide. Common sense would probably dictate most of these decisions.

I'm not saying fetuses should be treated as full human beings who can be offended, be counted in the census, held in prison, and everything else we do. I just want our laws to be written with respect for the fetus as the human life it is.

4. I'm wondering.. what piece of pro-choice rhetoric most annoys you? That is, what seems the most silly, dismissive or just dumb? For me, it's the "unborn baby" tag, especially applied to situations like a frozen IVF embryo or a severely bad (eg anencephlalic) pregnancy. What are your pet peeves in the political rhetoric?
I would say the bodily integrity argument is the most annoying one. We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time. When a law is passed against, say, shoplifting, people are being told they are not allowed to use their body to steal from the store.

It's even more annoying when this argument is used to silence pro-life men. I've been told several times that, since I'm not a woman and I'll never be pregnant, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

"I’ll bet that everyone who characterizes Roe v Wa...

2009-05-25T14:01:18.026-04:00

"I’ll bet that everyone who characterizes Roe v Wade as “judicial activitism” was perfectly content with the outcome in Bush v Gore."

Then you would lose that bet.

Roe v. Wade was a poor legal decision.

"The 68 percent level of support for upholding Roe...

2009-05-25T13:46:12.562-04:00

"The 68 percent level of support for upholding Roe v Wade is the highest of any poll"

That is a bad assumption.

Read the question again:

"Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"

The key word, that you are ignoring is 'completely'.

I am not particularly fond of "conscience clauses....

2009-05-25T12:37:23.458-04:00

I am not particularly fond of "conscience clauses." At the very best, they are a slippery slope.

For example, a virulent racist may well believe that mixed-race marriage, or even sexual contact, is an act of evil. Nevertheless, this does not allow them to (say) refuse to rent a hotel room to a mixed-race couple.

I'd like it if you paused and thought for a moment about how toothless the legislation protecting against racial discrimination would have been if it had "conscience clauses." Remember that racism (and slavery) was justified through theological arguments, as often as not,

As an Obama supporter who believes that abortion i...

2009-05-25T12:17:14.906-04:00

As an Obama supporter who believes that abortion is wrong, I will take a crack at these:

So, what should the legal penalty be for abortion? I think it should be up to the state. However, if I have to choose, I would say it has to be somewhat prohibitive, maybe a felony with a slightly higher penalty for the one performing it, if it can be proven it isn't the "doctor's" first time. I don't understand how you can be pro-life and want the death penalty for someone who committed abortion, but that's just me.

If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father, and has an abortion, how long should she go to jail? Dad should go to jail, daughter to counseling with probation.

If a woman has to choose between having an abortion or having the chemotherapy to treat her cervical cancer, and chooses abortion, how long does she go to jail? Abortion OK in this scenario as the health of the mother is at stake. Obviously then I am pro-choice...

We live in a death penalty state. If a college girl gets drunk, gets pregnant and has an abortion of convenience, and you say abortion is murder, should she be executed by lethal injection or the electric chair? I don't believe in the death penalty so I would hope that the governor would pardon her. I also don't equate it to murder though I believe it is very wrong! I know you can drive a truck through the holes in that logic, but that is what I believe.

How long do we imprison her friend, who introduced her to the abortionist and thereby became an accomplice to murder?First time, probation. After that, some prohibitive prison time.

Personally, I don't think judges should determine whether abortion is legal. I think every state should have a referendum every X number of years. Same with Death Penalty and Gay Marriage, even though I am very against the Death Penalty and very for Gay Marriage.

Watson, why is Pres. Obama calling for common grou...

2009-05-25T08:41:43.636-04:00

Watson, why is Pres. Obama calling for common ground? Because abortion is the Great Wedge Issue. If he can neutralize the issue and abortion falls back to the level of background static in the public discourse, then young Evangelicals and Catholics who may otherwise support the Democratic party (on issues like the environment, poverty, healthcare and aid to developing nations) can consider voting Democratic without feeling like they're "murdering babies".

In the ICU room that is the GOP's current environment, talk radio, business, pro-life voters, gun nuts, tin-foil hat wearing anti-government types, Southern-strategy crypto-racists and military voters are the Republican party's life support system, roughly in that order. Remove one of the more publicly palatable parts of that coalition, and the other factions are emboldened, making the GOP look wackier and narrower by the day.

The Dems have already made successful overtures to casual gun owners by softening (or nearly abandoning) their anti-gun stance. And, listen to the arguments for healthcare, very little of the soppy old stories about Little Timmy needing a heart operation. No, healthcare is now framed as a cost that small business and major industry alike can't bear. If Obama can neutralize pro-life voters, say get support from half of them, the Dems get that much stronger.

What I love about the term 'activist judge' is tha...

2009-05-25T08:19:12.390-04:00

What I love about the term 'activist judge' is that it only applies to judges you disagree with. What evidence is there that say Justice Scalia does not base legal findings on his own political views? Or that say Chief Justice Earl Warren (a Republican, nominated by a Republican President just in case anyone thinks I am making a party political point) viewed the bench as an opportunity to make law? I think its something the right comes up with to assure that a 'far left' justice doesn't get nominated to the bench.

My point being that surely it would take a level of activism to overturn Roe v Wade. And there isn't anything terribly wrong with that. The court is not tied into legal precedent. The Founding Fathers wanted the court to interpret, not just to follow the letter of, the law. The envisioned 'activist' judges.

Why is Obama calling for common ground when anti-a...

2009-05-25T08:02:11.627-04:00

Why is Obama calling for common ground when anti-abortionists have denied women access to contraceptives in Mississippi by harassing those who dispense them, are against funding birth control that would give women control over their own bodies, and are for overthrowing a constitutional right that protects all medical decisions? If these are constitutional rights, we must take Federal action to protect them from the actions of a few, just like we did with the rights of blacks. Why doesn't Obama care about the rights of women enough to carry out his campaign promises?

Thank you very much, the only saneone, for replyin...

2009-05-25T07:29:21.735-04:00

Thank you very much, the only saneone, for replying. If you don't mind, and I'm sorry if this turns into a deluge from others, but... mind if I ask a few other questions I've often wondered about? (And some get fairly legal. If you're not a lawyer as I'm not, take you best shot at it.)

1. Oral contraceptives work in a way that can cause a fertilized egg from implanting. This is why pharamcists are covered by a conscience clause about dispensing them (a good thing IMHO). Should OCs be illegal? If a woman uses OCs legally what is it? Attempted murder? Reckless endangerment?

2. I am confused on what Pro-Life folks want. Most say in public "overturn Roe v. Wade", which would simply throw it back to the states, sometimes on a state's rights argument. But, then the Republican platform calls for a Human Life Amendment which would extend the 14th Amendment to include fetuses/ unborn babies, thereby banning abortion in all states and territories, even strongly pro-choice ones like New York and California. Which is it? Or is it some combo of the two? And if the first, how should we handle women who cross state lines.

3. If it is the extension of the 14th Amendment, might that not cause an avalanche of frivolous, but legally provocative lawsuits like... can a pregnant woman enter a porno theater? Or should pregnancies and frozen IVF embryos be counted for the census? Or can a pregnant woman legally be held in prison, thereby imprisoning two people, one innocent? Can someone at 17 years and 3 months old vote? Or draw social security nine months earlier? And what counts for citizenship purposes, whether you were born or conceived on US soil? (Yes, yes, mostly silly, but tell me you can't see the courts being clogged with this stuff.)

4. I'm wondering.. what piece of pro-choice rhetoric most annoys you? That is, what seems the most silly, dismissive or just dumb? For me, it's the "unborn baby" tag, especially applied to situations like a frozen IVF embryo or a severely bad (eg anencephlalic) pregnancy. What are your pet peeves in the political rhetoric?

5. The Republican party says it's pro-life. In fact, it trumpets the fact every chance it gets. But after a few decades of an overwhelmingly "pro-life" party platform, how much has actually changed since 1973? When liberals (Dems and some Reps alike) finally decided to deal with civil rights somewhere around 1948, it didn't take decades and decades and decades to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. And, as expected, the Democrats payed for it with the loss of the South in Presidential elections. There seems to be a tangible lack of action on abortion on the part of federal Republicans, except for nibbling at the edges. From the outside, it looks like you're being taken for a ride. Do you ever feel the same way?

Sorry again for so many questions, but it's a rare privilege in our nation's bifurcated public square to get the opportunity to ask any of these questions, and I'm really curious.

"Anonymous said... I find it ironic that the ...

2009-05-25T07:22:02.363-04:00

"Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that the fundie arsehats that want the government to ban abortion are the same people saying government needs to get out of peoples lives."

Ain't that the truth? The crazed righties want small government, except for when they want to interfere in others lives and stop personal choice on such topics as abortion and marriage.

Also, you can add hypocrisy on the Constitution to the list. They want the second Amendment read broadly (essentially ignoring the militia language)while at the same time wanting the Equal Protection clause read narrowly to stop gay marriage, and ignoring the right to privacy, essentially in a random walk.

The problem with theonlysaneone's post is that it ...

2009-05-25T07:12:48.805-04:00

The problem with theonlysaneone's post is that it is talking in abstracts. Talking about penalties for legal actions should they become illegal seems very difficult to me.

I find it very odd though, and theonlysaneone's post brings this to light, that 'pro-life' on abortion tends to also mean 'pro-death' on the death penalty. As a Catholic I find that a very very hard circle to square.

However I do agree that if Roe v Wade was overturned (which isn't likely to happen in my view), its those administering the abortion that should be punished in most cases.

theonlysaneone: Why do you think that the doctor ...

2009-05-25T05:07:57.055-04:00

theonlysaneone:

Why do you think that the doctor should be punished more harshly than the woman who hired him? Do we punish hired killers or the ones who hired them more harshly under the law? Isn't it common for hired killers to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for testifying against the person who, by hiring them, conspired to commit murder?

Also, on the 13-year-old girl, I suppose you have no compunctions about charging her as if she were an adult. Why? And would your opinion change if she were 9 years old, as was the case recently in Brazil?

Notice that I'm not arguing with your position that those guilty of aborting a fetus should be judged guilty of homicide and punished accordingly. (By the way, if you're going to keep all laws the same except for the proviso that a fetus is considered a "person" under the law, homicide is not a capital crime in any U.S. state. Murder and homicide are treated differently under the law in every state.) That's your position - surely not mine, but it's a clear position. I merely ask you to clarify a couple of significant details, if you so choose.

I find it ironic that the fundie arsehats that wan...

2009-05-25T03:47:37.347-04:00

I find it ironic that the fundie arsehats that want the government to ban abortion are the same people saying government needs to get out of peoples lives.

As a pro-life person who believes abortion should ...

2009-05-25T02:48:41.976-04:00

As a pro-life person who believes abortion should be illegal in MOST circumstances, let me answer the questions of some people above:

So, what should the legal penalty be for abortion?I consider the fetus to be the equivalent of a human life. So, the legal penalty for abortion should be the same as the legal penalty for homicide in whichever state it takes place. That might mean a few years, 25 to life, or even the death penalty. That said, I believe the abortionist should bear the brunt of the penalty.

If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father, and has an abortion, how long should she go to jail?See above.

If a woman has to choose between having an abortion or having the chemotherapy to treat her cervical cancer, and chooses abortion, how long does she go to jail?This is where the abortion debate gets interesting. While I believe all humans have the right to life, I also believe all humans have the right to self-defense. If a person is going to kill you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you should have the legal right to use lethal force to stop that person if it is the only option. She would not go to jail, but she would probably have to defend herself in court.

We live in a death penalty state. If a college girl gets drunk, gets pregnant and has an abortion of convenience, and you say abortion is murder, should she be executed by lethal injection or the electric chair?Lethal injection, of course. The electric chair is just barbaric.

How long do we imprison her friend, who introduced her to the abortionist and thereby became an accomplice to murder?I have no idea how the laws about accessory to murder work, but I assume those would be applicable.

Even though it wasn't really asked, in case it comes up, I do oppose abortions in the event of rape or incest. The right of the human child to life supersedes the right of the mother to be in charge of "what goes in and out of her vajayjay" regardless of the circumstances of the child's creation.

The key to this debate is that true pro-lifers consider the fetus to be a human being with all of the rights we have. The poll question that SHOULD be asked is whether one believes the child's rights or the mother's rights come first. The policy will follow once that question is settled.